I’m writing an MTh dissertation on Bonhoeffer’s theology and practice of community. I’m planning to trace the development of his theology of community through his writings and compare them to the various experiences of community (especially Finkenwalde and the somewhat different community of Tegel) in his life. I’m using this as a pilot study in advance of a PhD which explores the most effective ‘form’ of community for forming ministers, hence the focus on Finkenwalde. Bonhoeffer’s pseudo-monastic model looks intriguing and could be a frontrunner (I’m keen on the idea of monastic communities as more formative than university communites, for example – anyone agree/disagree?)

If anyone knows of any obvious sources for exactly these areas in the secondary literature, other than Day and Green, then I’d be keen to hear from them! Also, I’m eager to network with the broader Bonhoeffer academic community – please do drop an email to tom.oldman123@gmail.com

Many thanks.

What I mean “on the other side” is that IF we follow the argumentation that Bonhoeffer’s goal was to defend the Jews, then at this point I imagine he would be defending the Palestinians.

And also that he would reject the idea of a promised land. While I do believe he honored the Old Testament and the historical legacy Judaism brought to Christianity, he was pretty adamant in Ethics that the whole world is redeemed and brought to reconciliation with God…the world just doesn’t know it.

So the whole Israel as promised land and fulfillment of end time prophecy wouldn’t be something Bonhoeffer would embrace, I imagine. That would be completely opposite of his theology in “Christ, Reality, and Good.” He obviously rejected dispensationalism and the thought that the world would be destroyed. In fact he argued that the penultimate had to be maintained for the sake of the ultimate.

About your other question, I guess I do see a lot of co-opting Bonhoeffer for Jewish and conservative causes. One theologian became so angry here that he threatened to come and appeal my promotion based on my argument that Bonhoeffer’s cause was the church and not the Jews! He was rather hot under the collar about that one.

I can’t understand that type of thinking…but then he had written his masters thesis on the argument that Bonhoeffer did his theology in order to “save the Jews” so I think I hit a nerve.

Your point about the reality of the Jewish Question was point on. It was an historical necessity and not because he made the Jewish community more holy because they were Jews.

Good stuff, thanks!

Thank you for the extended reply.

I wholeheartedly agree that any attempt to connect Bonhoeffer’s adamant stance on “the Jewish question” of his day can in no way be the starting point for any argument whose trajectory leads to contemporary Zionsim. That would certainly be importing an agenda into history where it does not belong. And your point is well taken that Bonhoeffer would have made the same argument if it were baptized Arabs or Mexicans being disqualified from the ministry. I think you are exactly right. But the historical reality that he dealt with was the exclusion, marginalization, and ultimately ruthless extermination of Jewish persons (among others). A proper response to his life and action, I should say, a responsible course of action would be to look for people who are being similarly mistreated, and to stand up on their behalf. The Palestinians certainly come to mind, though the issues are certainly complex—and I want to stay far, far away from drawing analogies between 1930’s Germany and contemporary Israel.

Do you see Bonhoeffer being co-opted for conservative agendas very often?

And what do you mean by:
He was so opposed to isms that I think we would find him on the other side now.

The other side of what?

At any rate, thanks for your response. I wish you good luck and the gifts of creativity and clarity in your dissertation labors.

God’s peace,
Eric

I don’t have a problem with Bonhoeffer being associated with the Jewish situation…to a point.
I believe much of the problem comes with a misunderstanding of the whole of his theology and too much emphasis on “Letters and Papers.”

I agree that Bonhoeffer quickly understood the problem of the Aryan Clause…much quicker than more seasoned and older theologians…such as Barth. That is the brilliance of Bonhoeffer. He was quickly able to go from point A to point B. But I disagree that it was a rejection for a Jewish reason. The rejection of Bonhoeffer was a rejection of a clause that placed culture, race, etc. over justification. I believe today he would do the exact same if a baptized Arab was ejected from the pulpit or refused ordination because they are not Aryan. And we should expect from a Lutheran theologian to immediately understand an attack on Luther’s baby: sola fide!

That is the problem of connecting Bonhoeffer to the Jewish issue after the fact. I think the facts become confused because we think from a culture seeped in Zionism…a point that would not have been in Bonhoeffer’s mind. At least not in the same way.

Israel was not existent during Bonhoeffer’s life, and not even planned. The only Zionists were the Jewish community themselves and Hitler’s group. The Jewish community for obvious reason, and the Nazis because they really wanted to get rid of the Jews and send them away. Of course, because other countries were not willing to take the refugees from Germany, they had to develop the final solution.

So when we talk about the Jewish Question in the 1930s-40s, we are not talking about Israel or a Jewish homeland…all the problems of today.

The problem was what we see here in Europe and beginning in America. The mindset that Hitler began to cultivate towards the Jews is very similar to the mindset that is being cultivated towards Muslims in Western Europe and Mexicans in the States. Hitler promoted the idea that Jews were tribal people that came and destroyed business because they only took care of their own. He based Germany’s financial problems on the Jews “controlling the world’s finances” rather than placing the blame where it belonged…war restitution. He claimed that the Jews were destroying the economy, taking away jobs from the Aryans, raising taxes because of their social problems, etc. etc. Sounds very familiar. That is why Jewish business owners started placing their war service records on their windows. They were attempting to repute the charges against their community, but, of course, Hitler needed an enemy in order to scare the people into his plan. Bonhoeffer understood that reparations were the seed of the problem…that was his work for the Abwehr. To use his ecumenical contacts to negotiate reasonable reparations if Germany surrendered.

So the problem was social and political as Eric pointed out…although I would disagree that Bonhoeffer covered any of his political beliefs with theology. I would assert that Bonhoeffer formed his political ideas from his theology…not vice-versa and that was the difference between him and the Deutsche Christen.

I will take a leap out on a limb and say that if Bonhoeffer were alive today, I think he would go so far as to reject much of what is happening in the world. He was so opposed to isms that I think we would find him on the other side now.

And I imagine, after knowing what he wrote in his Bible on Kristallnacht, that he would write the date of immigration raids in his Bible next to Leviticus 19: 33-34, or he would be writing theological protest against the ever expanding Green Line.

And so that is why I have a problem with connecting him to closely with what we are experiencing in much of evangelicalism today. I think part of the danger of this is that we are missing so much of what he had to say about the church that we are contributing to the secularization of, at least, Europe. Maybe the opposite in the States. I believe that the real heart of Bonhoeffer was the church.

As far as evil, I hope you will soon be able to hear my viewpoints on that as well!

Thanks guys for the great discussion!

Blesssings!

Glad to hear from you. I’d like to pipe in on the question of Bonhoeffer’s relationship to the Jews in Germany.

You are certainly right to bring up the event with his father in law. So far as I understand it, the string of events reflects even worse on him than you might have suggested. His reasons were political as well as theological. It wasn’t merely that his father in law was not a baptized believer in Christ (though that may have been a theological layer of justification with merit of its own), but that his bishop strongly discouraged him from speaking at the service. Bonhoeffer regretted that decision for years and apologized for it, as you mention.

But on the other side, we shouldn’t be too quick to distance Bonhoeffer from “the Jewish question either.” Bonhoeffer was certainly one of the first, if not the first, German theologian to realize that the critical issue in the Nazi’s grab for power was the treatment of the Jews. Barth gives Bonhoeffer great credit for this. Prior to the Barmen Synod, Barth and Bonhoeffer had a great disagreement. Bonhoeffer was sure that the requirement that pastors of Jewish heritage give up their role in the ministry constituted a status confessionis a fundamental compromise of the Christian gospel. Bonhoeffer urged that the Church make a stand on this point. Barth recommended caution and patience (and regretted it ever after).

You are certainly right to point out that Bonhoeffer’s character and the value of his theology do not stand or fall on the case that we make for his advocacy for the Jews. On the other hand, his voice was one of the few urging sanity in a time of madness, and that should not be minimized.

I’d be interested in hearing more about your dissertation–especially what you are encountering with regard to Bonhoeffer’s perspective on evil. Surely you’ve come across the excellent article by Charles Matthewes that deals with Bonhoeffer and Arendt on evil…

At any rate, I’m curious….

Warmly,
Eric

Thanks for stopping by. I had forgotten about the issue with his brother in law.

I absolutely agree regarding readin Bonhoeffer himself, paricularly as he is a fairly accessible thinker; it was one of my concerns regarding posting the recommended reading page (to which I am open to any additions you may want to recommend).

If you’d like to sign up as a contributer to the site let me know, it would be great if you could.